First MC Cartridge

[anmpr1]

对不起 It's the Secrets of Home Theater and Hi Fi. I just type Hi Fi Secrets because I'm too lazy.

Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity

Home Theater Reviews for Systems and Audio Components - Audio Visual Product Reviews, Technical AV Guides, Home Theater Equipment and Product Reviews

hometheaterhifi.com

 

[levimax]

It'd be nice if those with decent ADC equipment could do a few recordings of different cartridges they own playing back the same track/s. I heard a comparison of a Goldring 1042 (£325) vs an AT ART9 (£900) on YT. Besides the comparison track being a bit naff for comparisons sake (music itself is fine), the difference between the two, even though the ART does seem marginally better, didn't seem to justify the cost to me. What do you guys think?

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I think comparisons like this could be of interest to members.

Members with ADC have posted a lot of cartridge measurements using test records over on this thread https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/mm-vs-mi-vs-mc.18636/page-10#post-181

The "script" used for the measurements is posted in the thread as well so you can even try it for yourself.

 

[Angsty]

Off the top of my head, the only person I can think of that is conducting in-depth phono cartridge reviews is David Rich, over at the Hi Fi Secrets site. One of his recent cartridge reviews showed pretty marginal (for a cartridge) measurements, but the sound was judged to be quite good.

Paul Miller is still doing cartridge measurements for HiFi News.

Soundsmith Zephyr MIMC Star Cartridge Lab Report

Lab Report Depending on where you look – the website, downloadable 'manual' or engraved on the bottom of the Zephyr MIMC Star's wooden case – the suggested tracking force varies from 1.8-2.0g, 1.6-2.0g and 1.8-2.2g. I performed all my tests at 2.0g where this 'moving-iron' pick-up tracked like a...

www.hifinews.com

 

[Angsty]

It'd be nice if those with decent ADC equipment could do a few recordings of different cartridges they own playing back the same track/s. I heard a comparison of a Goldring 1042 (£325) vs an AT ART9 (£900) on YT. Besides the comparison track being a bit naff for comparisons sake (music itself is fine), the difference between the two, even though the ART does seem marginally better, didn't seem to justify the cost to me. What do you guys think?

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I think comparisons like this could be of interest to members.

A few years ago, Mike Fremer did a comparison of nine cartridges with needledrops and collected votes on which was best. It may be of interest to you.

Nine Cartridges Reviewed, Compared and File Identities Revealed!

First of all thanks to everyone who participated. More did than we initially expected. This is a learning experience for sure. Future such surveys will feature “normalized” files so levels will be equal. I’ll be far more careful about clipped files too.

www.analogplanet.com

 

[Bob from Florida]

I’d thought about the Hana ML, too, but ultimately decided to put the cash difference into a transimpedance phonostage instead. The Sutherland TZ Vibe could be a starter, but I’ve really got my eye on the Little Loco.

If you try either of the trans impedance phono stages, I would be very interested in the results. The VZ Vibe would be the limit for me as a max cost. Comparing it to my $200 iFi Zen would be interesting.....

 

[Angsty]

Another bit of an aside relative to cartridges, but I find this review of the Bryston BP-2 MM/MC to be a continuing delight. In re-reading it today, I made note of all the reference texts noted in the measurements portion of the review. I plan to go back and read some of these texts myself, especially the one by Tomlinson Holman, to deepen my understanding of phonostage design. I own a BP-1.5 which is the older brother of the BP-2 with very similar specs and circuit design.

The BP-1.5 is principal hurdle for me to get the Little Loco. After a tune-up at Bryston last month, it sounds so dang good that I'm having a hard time getting my head around something potentially better. It certainly has slowed my roll.

Bryston BP2-20 MM/MC Phono Preamp Review - HomeTheaterHifi.com

Bryston’s deceptively simple yet potent little phono preamp has but one purpose, to translate the music from your record collection as...

hometheaterhifi.com

 

[Angsty]

Since the original posting, I have sidelined my Sutherland Insight for the Bryston BP-1.5 and purchased my second MC cartridge, a Hana ML.

Bryston eschews the whole loading thing by using an integrated SUT in front of the MM stage. Now, it’s a simple toggle switch from MM to MC to switch cartridge types.

 

[Bob from Florida]

Since the original posting, I have sidelined my Sutherland Insight for the Bryston BP-1.5 and purchased my second MC cartridge, a Hana ML.

Bryston eschews the whole loading thing by using an integrated SUT in front of the MM stage. Now, it’s a simple toggle switch from MM to MC to switch cartridge types.

After getting the ML - do you have sufficient improvements to justify the added cost?

 

[Angsty]

After getting the ML - do you have sufficient improvements to justify the added cost?

Frankly, no - not at this time. But that comes with a big caveat. I have not put the ML on my VPI Traveler yet; I put it on my lower cost Pioneer PLX-1000.

With the ML on the PLX, it got close to, but did not match, the performance of the SL on the Traveler. That was a surprise to me. There could be lots of reasons for that, but I find the SL/Traveler combo to be wonderful and I was not ready to change it. The ML was purchased at a steep discount to be a backup for the SL, not its replacement.

I'm looking to replace the PLX with a second Traveler for my office and I'd certainly plan to mount the ML on it.

 

[Bob from Florida]

Frankly, no - not at this time. But that comes with a big caveat. I have not put the ML on my VPI Traveler yet; I put it on my lower cost Pioneer PLX-1000.

With the ML on the PLX, it got close to, but did not match, the performance of the SL on the Traveler. That was a surprise to me. There could be lots of reasons for that, but I find the SL/Traveler combo to be wonderful and I was not ready to change it. The ML was purchased at a steep discount to be a backup for the SL, not its replacement.

I'm looking to replace the PLX with a second Traveler for my office and I'd certainly plan to mount the ML on it.

Arm mass around 10 for the Traveler and 12 for the PLX. ML weighs around 9 and SL around 5. Resonance will be different even with the same arm. My guess is the ML might work better with one of the arms....

 

[Angsty]

Arm mass around 10 for the Traveler and 12 for the PLX. ML weighs around 9 and SL around 5. Resonance will be different even with the same arm. My guess is the ML might work better with one of the arms....

Probably true. I have not run the resonance calcs to validate. I did switch to a lower mass headshell on the PLX to compensate a bit. VPI support said the ML should be fine on its arm. There are also bearing issues on the PLX that could impact its ultimate level of performance.

Although Stereophile and Steve Guttenberg liked the PLX-1000 more than the Traveler, I think the execution of the Traveler is more sound than that of the Pioneer after living with both for 3 years. To optimize the Pioneer tonearm likely requires tools and skills I don’t have yet in tonearm tuning.

 

[dlaloum]

Since the original posting, I have sidelined my Sutherland Insight for the Bryston BP-1.5 and purchased my second MC cartridge, a Hana ML.

Bryston eschews the whole loading thing by using an integrated SUT in front of the MM stage. Now, it’s a simple toggle switch from MM to MC to switch cartridge types.

How does this avoid the whole loading thing?

The actual frequency response of an MM cartridge is tailored by the loading - if you don't have the loading right, then you cannot get a flat frequency response (or anything aproximating to it!).

How does a SUT avoid this? (unless you are then tailoring the frequency response post SUT using some other form of EQ)

 

[Bob from Florida]

How does this avoid the whole loading thing?

The actual frequency response of an MM cartridge is tailored by the loading - if you don't have the loading right, then you cannot get a flat frequency response (or anything aproximating to it!).

How does a SUT avoid this? (unless you are then tailoring the frequency response post SUT using some other form of EQ)

Check out this link for an explanation. https://www.bobsdevices.com/_files/ugd/7869ac_dfce9846c7c1427899863a89f89b2a31.pdf

The SUT matches impedance by the square of the turns ratio. A SUT with 20 db of gain has a 10 to 1 turns ratio. Using 47,000 ohms input to a typical MM phono stage we divide 47000 / 100 = 470 ohms reflected at the cartridge. This meets the Hana recommendation of >400 ohms, but you might like higher reflected load so the ability to change the input resistance of your phono stage still comes in handy with a SUT. Basic rule of thumb with moving coils - no bass and tons of detail means not enough load, needs lower reflected resistance. Muddy sounds needs less load or higher reflected resistance.

 

[dlaloum]

Check out this link for an explanation. https://www.bobsdevices.com/_files/ugd/7869ac_dfce9846c7c1427899863a89f89b2a31.pdf

The SUT matches impedance by the square of the turns ratio. A SUT with 20 db of gain has a 10 to 1 turns ratio. Using 47,000 ohms input to a typical MM phono stage we divide 47000 / 100 = 470 ohms reflected at the cartridge. This meets the Hana recommendation of >400 ohms, but you might like higher reflected load so the ability to change the input resistance of your phono stage still comes in handy with a SUT. Basic rule of thumb with moving coils - no bass and tons of detail means not enough load, needs lower reflected resistance. Muddy sounds needs less load or higher reflected resistance.

Yes - that's fine for MC cartridges...

But MM cartridges, by design, use the resonance boost, and EQ curves of the Inductance/Capacitance/Impedance circuit to adjust their frequency response...

This is why most of the very best (in terms of frequency response) cartridges, have been MM - the imperfections of the base F/R of the cantilever (and its resonances) was adjusted for by a basic EQ filter AKA loading.

MC cartridges have no such equivalent in their design - there is nothing in their base circuit design (including phono pre whether SUT or not) to provide EQ outside of the RIAA EQ.

So although most users are not aware of it, MM cartridges have a PEQ built into their design - and you can adjust its parameters by adjusting C & R (if you have a collection of cartridge bodies, you can sometimes even change the inductance, as same family cartridge bodies with interchangeable styli, were at different times made with differing inductances - designed to match differing styli!) - today with OEM styli impossible to find for many vintage MM's, this ability to re-adjust the EQ for the differing stylus becomes critical... (at least if you have as one of your objectives, an objectively neutral frequency response.... otherwise it becomes a completely subjective exercise of listening to different configurations with differing frequency responses for ones preference... you might as well be playing with a graphic equaliser, you would get much the same sonic experience!)

 

[Bob from Florida]

Yes - that's fine for MC cartridges...

But MM cartridges, by design, use the resonance boost, and EQ curves of the Inductance/Capacitance/Impedance circuit to adjust their frequency response...

This is why most of the very best (in terms of frequency response) cartridges, have been MM - the imperfections of the base F/R of the cantilever (and its resonances) was adjusted for by a basic EQ filter AKA loading.

MC cartridges have no such equivalent in their design - there is nothing in their base circuit design (including phono pre whether SUT or not) to provide EQ outside of the RIAA EQ.

So although most users are not aware of it, MM cartridges have a PEQ built into their design - and you can adjust its parameters by adjusting C & R (if you have a collection of cartridge bodies, you can sometimes even change the inductance, as same family cartridge bodies with interchangeable styli, were at different times made with differing inductances - designed to match differing styli!) - today with OEM styli impossible to find for many vintage MM's, this ability to re-adjust the EQ for the differing stylus becomes critical... (at least if you have as one of your objectives, an objectively neutral frequency response.... otherwise it becomes a completely subjective exercise of listening to different configurations with differing frequency responses for ones preference... you might as well be playing with a graphic equaliser, you would get much the same sonic experience!)

Understood. The advantage to the MC is capacitance is out of the equation and you can work with just one variable instead of two. My own situation is with my "new" table/arm Clearaudio Performance DC with Satisfy arm I have a high capacitance cable wired "Rega" style from cartridge to RCA plugs. That cable is 172 pf by itself before adding the phono stage capacitance. The table came with the Maestro 2 cartridge which when combined with the stock tonearm cable plus preamp is 272 pf. That is enough to produce a resonance peak you can hear. Great cartridge with beryllium cantilever and their ML diamond but is a bit on the "peaky" side. The Hana SL just "worked" without further tweaking than 60 db gain and 1000 ohm load. I cannot replace the needle - not an option on the MM Maestro 2 either without some minor surgery - but it works well for now. I did try a couple of different SUT's with the Hana - homemade with Jensen transformers (20 db) and Quicksilver (23 db) but the Zen phono beats both. The Quicksilver had better high frequency extension but the unusual 23 db gain made it better suited to a bit less output - Denon 103 was a good match. My old tonearm on the Merrill table - Graham Robin - had a DIN plug so you had some control over your cable capacitance and a detachable head-shell. Should have kept it, but the guy that bought my old table really wanted the arm.
The problem with not having a detachable head-shell is additional time spent swapping cartridges - I can do it including alignment in about 15 minutes with the tools I have. When I had 2 head-shells that was done in 2 minutes - after the first alignment on each head-shell. However, being basically "lazy" now, perhaps the additional work required to keep trying and tweaking different cartridges is a good thing. One day I could put the Maestro back on and add a parallel resistor box at the phono input to "tame" that peakiness. The sensible thing would be to just keep playing records with the Hana for now.

 

[dlaloum]

Understood. The advantage to the MC is capacitance is out of the equation and you can work with just one variable instead of two. My own situation is with my "new" table/arm Clearaudio Performance DC with Satisfy arm I have a high capacitance cable wired "Rega" style from cartridge to RCA plugs. That cable is 172 pf by itself before adding the phono stage capacitance. The table came with the Maestro 2 cartridge which when combined with the stock tonearm cable plus preamp is 272 pf. That is enough to produce a resonance peak you can hear. Great cartridge with beryllium cantilever and their ML diamond but is a bit on the "peaky" side. The Hana SL just "worked" without further tweaking than 60 db gain and 1000 ohm load. I cannot replace the needle - not an option on the MM Maestro 2 either without some minor surgery - but it works well for now. I did try a couple of different SUT's with the Hana - homemade with Jensen transformers (20 db) and Quicksilver (23 db) but the Zen phono beats both. The Quicksilver had better high frequency extension but the unusual 23 db gain made it better suited to a bit less output - Denon 103 was a good match. My old tonearm on the Merrill table - Graham Robin - had a DIN plug so you had some control over your cable capacitance and a detachable head-shell. Should have kept it, but the guy that bought my old table really wanted the arm.
The problem with not having a detachable head-shell is additional time spent swapping cartridges - I can do it including alignment in about 15 minutes with the tools I have. When I had 2 head-shells that was done in 2 minutes - after the first alignment on each head-shell. However, being basically "lazy" now, perhaps the additional work required to keep trying and tweaking different cartridges is a good thing. One day I could put the Maestro back on and add a parallel resistor box at the phono input to "tame" that peakiness. The sensible thing would be to just keep playing records with the Hana for now.

Yep, the Maestro is an AT95 with a fancy body fitted, and a very very nice needle/cantilever...

Based on experience with AT cartridges - it is at its best with something like 100pf .... just guessing... but it would be logical.

 

[mash]

Really curious on your experience pairing the Traveler with the Hana ML. Like you, I have the Traveler running with an SL. I'm also a big fan of that combo but was eying the ML as a possible upgrade.

FYI - saw on another forum somewhere that one of the posters had revceived confirmation from VPI that the effective mass for the Traveler arm was 10.2 grams.

 

[bkatbamna]

I got a Denon that was retipped by someone who sells them on ebay. cartridge_retipping-5 is the seller. Got a real good bargain and it sounds awesome. I listened to a couple of videos comparing a Denon DL 110 vs. a Lyra Delos which sells for 5 times as much and really could not pick one that I preferred.

 

[anmpr1]

I got a Denon that was retipped by someone who sells them on ebay. cartridge_retipping-5 is the seller. Got a real good bargain and it sounds awesome. I listened to a couple of videos comparing a Denon DL 110 vs. a Lyra Delos which sells for 5 times as much and really could not pick one that I preferred.

I've a DL-160 the same guy (probably) retipped. I don't know how he does it, but to my ears it sounds OK. Of course there is no way to compare it with new. Sitting in my drawer without at stylus, I said, "Why not?" I think it was maybe two hundred dollars for the service. Might have been less.

FWIW, DL-110 was Denon's entry level cart, and sold for about the same number of dollars as its model number. A brochure from many years ago, featuring about a dozen of their cartridges, claimed the 110 offered 'the Denon sound at a popular price.' Now, the company wants four hundred dollars for one, calling it an 'Ultra Premium' cartridge. I laugh at their marketing claims, and am amazed at the price increases over time. Not sure if the dollar has tanked that badly, if it's simply sales opportunism, or if the price reflects what it costs to make something in Japan, these days.

That said, the 110 is a very nice sounding cartridge; at least IMO. In the world of MC, four hundred dollars is bottom tier pricing. And you don't need a transformer for it, so it's got that going for it.

 

[Angsty]

Really curious on your experience pairing the Traveler with the Hana ML. Like you, I have the Traveler running with an SL. I'm also a big fan of that combo but was eying the ML as a possible upgrade.

FYI - saw on another forum somewhere that one of the posters had revceived confirmation from VPI that the effective mass for the Traveler arm was 10.2 grams.

Mounted the Hana ML on the Traveler - the ML sounds at least as good as the SL, which is what one would expect for so much more money. I’m getting more detail from the ML than from the SL, depending on where I set VTF. The ML is indeed even more setup sensitive than the SL in my opinion; 2.1 grams sounds different than 2.0 grams. But, it was not a night and day sonic difference between the carts initially.

I need to run the ML for at least 50 hours before I can really compare. It took a couple of weeks for the SL to fully settle in after I initially installed it, too.